Essays, Reviews, Commentary, and Original Scholarship. A Film Blog that strives to be Art.

Tuesday, April 9, 2013

Paramount And MGM Did Everything Right With 'G.I. Joe: Retaliation' (Except Make A Good Movie).

It's no secret that I didn't much care of G.I. Joe: Retaliation when I saw it at the All-Media screening just under two weeks ago. Heck, I'm one of maybe ten critics on the planet who actually preferred Stephen Summers's first (and I'd argue, underrated) G.I. Joe picture from summer 2009. But despite my personal preferences, the film is a solid hit worldwide, ushering in an almost immediate green-light forG.I. Joe 3. Paramount did a few very smart things during the production of this Jon Chu-helmed sequel. In fact, other than the fact that it's not a very good movie (arguably the hardest variable to plan on, natch), Paramount Pictures and MGM's handling ofG.I. Joe: Retaliation may be a primer on how to successfully launch a tentpole film in today's marketplace. First of all, that much-debated nine-month delay from June 2012 to March 2013 turned out to be the right call. Aside from the obvious 10-20% bump in ticket prices per 3D-ticket sold, overseas audiences went for the 3D, and the delay in order to convert the film to 3D is partially responsible for its strong $232 million-and-counting worldwide total, or already within reach of the $300 million thatRise of Cobra earned altogether.

Second of all, they kept the budget down just a little bit. Rise of Cobra cost $175 million and thus barely broke even with its $300 million gross. For newbies, a film generally has to make twice its budget back to break even, give or take marketing costs and/or afterlife on various home video formats. G.I. Joe: Retaliation cost "just" $130 million. Which means, offhand, that it needs to gross $90 million less than Rise of Cobra to approximate that film's relative success. Since it's already earned $232 million worldwide, it's already at the magic 'double your budget' point in just ten days of worldwide play. A 'triple your budget' total of $390 million is more-than-plausible at this point, meaning that Paramount and MGM will make money on the film before it even goes to the various home viewing formats (Paramount has the domestic distribution rights while MGM has overseas rights). In an era when studios spend $200-$250 million on would-be tent-poles and then wonder why their big picture didn't connect with audiences on a global scale and gross $600 million worldwide, Paramount's comparability frugal spending means that the film doesn't need to be the next Inception just to break even. I'd argue the smaller budget sadly shows onscreen (the action is much smaller in scale this time around), but I'd also say that spending $200 million would not have turned the film into any more of a blockbuster than it is.

Another smart play was the decision not to use that nine month delay to do extensive reshoots. It's a mistake we see all too often, to little avail. As I said above, G.I. Joe: Retaliation isn't very good. But it can be debated how much better it could have been with reshoots, since the film is what the film is regardless. For example, Universal made a very different choice with The Wolfman in 2010. Joe Johnston's werewolf horror drama was scheduled to be released in November of 2008 at a cost of around $90 million. Cut to February 2010 and the heavily reshot The Wolfman, now at a cost of $150 million, opens to what should have been a decent $32 million opening weekend over Valentine's Day weekend. But since the film cost $150 million instead of $90 million, its final $142 million gross was not just a disappointment but a catastrophic flop. Would Universal have not been better off just releasing the mediocre werewolf movie they had in late 2008 as opposed to the mediocre werewolf movie they had in 2010 at a cost of an additional $60 million? Paramount had nine months to tinker with G.I. Joe: Retaliation, but they chose not to. Aside from one brief (and special effects-free) new scene involving Dwayne Johnson and Channing Tatum playing video games together, the film that was released last week is the same film as was intended to be released in June of 2012.

What the studios realized is that the film they had was "good enough" to successfully market as a pre-summer would-be blockbuster. They knew that the 3D conversion (which probably cost around $15 million) would pay for itself and then-some in foreign box office and decided to basically leave the film it was. They resisted the urge to insert more second and third-act scenes of rising star Channing Tatum, because the film was never intended to be sold on his emerging bankability. They knew that it had the G.I. Joe brand and action stars like Dwayne Johnson and Bruce Willis. Speaking of which, that's the other thing Paramount did right: movie stars + concept. People like to scream how the movie star is dead, but it's more complicated that that. Long-story short, you need a combination of stars *and* concept. Paramount knew that the film was "good enough" (IE - it had enough trailer-friendly moments) to garner a strong opening weekend. The studio knew that it was pointless and counter-productive to throw tens-of-millions of dollars in order to slightly improve what was always going to be a B-movie action picture based on a line of toys.

Paramount and MGM kept the budget low enough so that G.I. Joe 2 didn't need to be a record-setting smash in order to be profitable. The studio knew not to spend additional countless millions when the film they had was perfectly acceptable for mass consumption. They had the 3D conversion (an extra expense that paid for itself almost instantly) for overseas audiences, plus the media-friendly movie stars who could successfully plug the film in various outlets. They knew what they had and what they didn't need. As any G.I. Joe fan can tell you, knowing is half the battle. Of course, since we are getting a G.I. Joe 3, maybe next time they can make a better movie. Yo Joe?

I saw this post and that i felt I required to administer my take. I actually have browse through the comments and most of the individuals appear sad with paramount projectors Well, i assume I’m the sole happy person here. I bought a Paramount smart-905 a jiffy agone and I’m pleased with it. I developed interest to shop for a predominate projector when being suggested by a devotee to create the acquisition. once I visited the stores, I found that the projector was going at $4000 that was fully unaffordable on behalf of me. the seller united to create a deal and sold-out it to American state at $1200. I watch movies with it and therefore the pictures square measure continuously super sharp. On occasions, I watch TV exploitation it and it works dead. .

Because it is possible to re-edit essays after they have been posted, please feel free to alert me to any typos, grammar issues, and questions of factual accuracy, preferably by email and not in the comments section. And, also, since I often embed video clips, please let me know if any said clips are no longer functioning. Thanks.

About Me

The basics - 31 years old, married with two children, currently residing in Woodland Hills, CA. I am simply a longtime film critic and pundit of sorts, especially in the realm of box office. The main content will be film reviews, trailer reviews, essays, and box office analysis and comparison. I also syndicate myself at The Huffington Post, Valley Scene Magazine, and Open Salon.
I will update as often as my schedule allows. Yes, I'm on Facebook/Twitter/LinkIn, so feel free to find me there. All comments are appreciated, just be civil and try to keep a level discourse, as I will make every effort to do the same.